The Weekend Five Ruminations - 11/17/2007

[1] CNN reports on the American Academy of Religion's study of the completely insufferable concept of the "flying sphaghetti monster" at their annual conference. The idea was thought up by a graduate student as a satire of the intelligent design movement. While I have no severe nor direct quarrel with satire, this attempt to level a derisive barrage on religion contains too much danger to be taking humorously, much less seriously.

I believe there are better ways to intellectually debate concepts like intelligent design. Whatever your views on that subject, this satirical method comes dangerously close (and in my book crosses) the line between discussion and outright mockery, or even a form of (at least) indirect idolatry; which implicitly connotes rejection.

Even if, as some proponents might suggest, the purpose "between the lines" of the satire is to point out that if one method gets time in the classroom then others should as well is inherently dangerous on two points. One, that organized religion is inherently on par with the monster. I need not expand upon this. Second, and more crucially, that the concept inherently mocks not only intelligent design, but ultimately religion and theism itself. The true between-the-lines commentary of the concept is that religion is mutually exclusive to science and knowledge, and thus religion and its contents should suffer the exile of societal irrelevancy. That logical chain demonstrates the severe rejection dangers.

[2] On an infintely brighter note, I would like to point out that on the sidebar, directly below the picture of Don Cervantes, there are two new additions. Courtesy of TNIV (Today's New International Version), we have a bible search function (by keyword or passage) and a scripture feature updated daily via RSS feed.

[3] Regarding an earlier post (and its comments) on Mr. Robertson's endorsement of Mr. Giuliani, I have an additional point. The use of "religious right" has received I believe the same villification that terms such as "neo-conservative", or even "liberal" (years ago) obtained. I am not entirely sure if the sense of its use connotes politicians expounding religious viewpoints, or the entire politican-and-bloc of religious adherents. Either way, I fear that the mere mention of "religious right" has the sole use of mockery and derision. It should not blanket conservative voters who identify with religion.

[4] I would hope that Pakistan can settle their governmental dilemma. It seems there is a spate of governments in peril, or rather the inverse (regarding the public) in places such as Burma. One prays that the resolution arrives quickly and peacefully.

[5] Back to the presidential elections. In the interest of winding up the Weekend Five with some brevity, all I will say is that with so many choices there are so few. Time will tell, but I am not keen on the current election cycle.
-------
Sources: [1] CNN. [2] TNIV.

Neuhaus on Religion and Politics

Over at the First Things blog, Richard John Neuhaus recounts* a debate sponsored by The Economist last week in New York. The discussion concerned a proposed resolution (surprise) that politics and religion should always be separate. Neuhaus presents his quite admirable opening statement in his post (all bias aside). Much of his argument aligns with my thoughts on the matter, and while I highly recommend reading through the entire statement, I will relay some quotes:

"It is not true that our society is divided between a moral majority of the religious, on the one hand, and an immoral or amoral minority of the nonreligious, on the other. Atheists can have moral convictions that are every bit as strong as the moral convictions of the devout Christian or observant Jew. What we have in the political arena is not a division between the moral and the immoral but an ongoing contention between different moral visions addressing the political question—how ought we to order our life together...

...[t]he idea that some citizens should be excluded from addressing that question because their arguments are religious, or that others should be excluded because their arguments are nonreligious or antireligious, is an idea deeply alien to the representative democracy that this constitutional order is designed to protect. A foundational principle of that order is that all citizens have equal standing in the public square."
------
Source: [*] First Things [Richard John Neuhaus].

Christian Types

Over at Christianity Today/Leadership Journal, Helen Lee reports* on a new (and quite detailed) survey which attempts to chronicle and categorize Christians into various classifications, or levels, as it were. Factors include church attendance, relationships, and media.

While I tend to be somewhat cautious about categorization in general, as such surveying does not always serve to keep us focused on God and our duties, I must say that this particular report caught my eye. The list at the bottom of the report, while not nearly exhaustive (nor is it meant to be), asks us quite blatantly where we stand in our day-to-day faith.

Much as the pendulum swings, we can easily find ourselves wavering between "professing" and "cultural" in our faith. Obvious points notwithstanding, I think this report's true purpose is not to advance a Linnaeus-esque classification scheme, but to serve as a vigilant reminder that our journey is always ongoing, and that we should not rest too comfortably, lest we take our faith for granted.

------
Source: Material linked above is copyrighted (2007) by Christianity Today/Leadership Journal [Helen Lee] and thus is not reprinted here. Please visit the link to see the report.

Death Tax Revisited?

Brian Reardon has an excellent guest commentary* over at National Review Online regarding the return of the so-called death tax, set to return in 2010. For those new to tax law this tax simply is applied against a person's estate upon their death.

It was repealed in 2001 and replaced temporarily with a capital gains tax. The more basic difference is in terms of valuation:

"People don’t really know what their estates are worth, so they also don’t know what will be owed on their estates when they pass. Most of the litigation surrounding the estate tax — and there is lots of it — involves disputes over the underlying value of an estate’s assets. But with a capital-gains tax there is no dispute. The value is the sales price."

Of course, there are advocates on both sides of the aisle, but arguably, this repeal really was solid public policy. Reardon closes with this point:

"What will the thousands of successful, hard-working people who are busy making their estate plans right now do differently if the death tax is permanently replaced with a simple capital-gains tax? The answer is they will make decisions based on what’s good for them, their families, their businesses, and their communities — and no longer worry about how to avoid or minimize a poorly thought-out tax."
------
Source: [*] National Review Online [Brian Reardon].

Republicans and the Religious Right

So, Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani . . . do we need any more proof that Republican politicos don't give a damn about the social issues so important to conservative Christians and are instead just interested in perpetuating their own power?
------
Source: NY Times